England's selection dilemmas...blessing or curse?

First topic message reminder :

Past England teams which have performed well at RWCs and 6Ns have tended to have very stable combinations in key areas of the field. I would argue that these historical teams have had players who were head and shoulders above their rivals for the jersey, and so the teams largely picked themselves. [big generalisation but stay with me...]

Fast forward to now, and i would describe England as having greater strength in depth than any other country (big league, lots of players, academies working well, RFU getting along well with PRL), with the possible exception of SA, but we dont have many nailed-on starters for any given match. It is a quality problem to the extent that even if faced with injuries we will still have a strong side, but it is also a big problem because we are still going to be agonising and arguing (depending on club and Intl form in the next 12 months) about selection for almost every position on the pitch. And as a result, we may never develop the level of understanding and fluency amongst players that having 900+ caps in an AB starting XV gives.

My view. If you have a genuinely world class option available you pick them. And you adapt your style of play to allow that player's impact to be maximised. Steffon Armitage needs to be included. I dont care where. He gave the much vaunted Billy V a schooling in the Heineken Cup Final. Won european player of the year. And a shoe-in for top14 player of the year. i reckon he is worth 9 points per match to England with what he does that is different, particularly ito turnovers.

As for the players in every other position, to be honest, none are standout world class, even though they are all very good. So i dont really care who gets picked as long as SL gives them all a good 10 matches to play together in white running up to RWC 2015.

No 7&1/2 wrote:And Burrell came on and improved the defense in the midfield.

To be fair my dead granny would have been an improvement over Eastmond !

Don't think Burrell is the answer - seems ok at a lot but never outstanding - you need better than that

Disagree on Ashton I thought he did ok under an onslaught.

Our defence is set out one in so the winger really doesn't cover hsi opposite number as the rush defence should cut this out. The problem is NZ broke the midfield time and time again meaning Savea was always in space and we were chasing. Ashton did as well as can be expected imo.

Burrell needs a shot at 12 (his position) before been written off. It's unfair to dismiss him when he's spent very little time in this position.

Burrell did very well in the 6n Geoff...theres no debate on that.

The problem is that against the AB's its just another level up. Average players will get highlighted, whilst even as a good player you simply cant make mistakes. One mistake will cost you as we have clear seen with Twelvetrees, etc.

I hated hearing about learning curves and all that rubbish...but this tour of any should be a lesson to everyone that you have to be error free against these guys. You have to be fitter, stronger and make no mistakes with your decisions. You need to work on your skills, your handling more than you have in the past.

Its not difficult...you just have to work harder than the AB's....but that IS a difficult thing.

Burrell really impressed me during the Six Nations, but I thought he was pretty awful this summer tour. He didn't carry as hard and I still don't think his defence was up to scratch. I really hope I'm proved wrong.

I reckon 36 and Burrell shoot it out for the 12 shirt, with Manu at 13.

Cyril wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Look at Wales, for example. Two significant losses and then a one-point loss. Sure it's good for their confidence to know they can compete with a top side but how much does that close loss paper over the problems exposed in the first and second tests? What state of mind will those players be in when they return to rugby?

Wales only had two tests, kia.

Oh very dear   

Well to be fair your losses in the SH do blend into one another.   

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Well to be fair your losses in the SH do blend into one another.   

as do your arrogant and clearly ignorant responses

I only watched your loss last week. I forgot the World XV played SA first up. I humbly apologise for incorrectly adding yet another SH loss to the basket.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:I only watched your loss last week. I forgot the World XV played SA first up. I humbly apologise for incorrectly adding yet another SH loss to the basket.

I'd rather be a Welsh fan than a NZ fan 8 days a week and you are why.

We don't make excuses when we lose like we did on Saturday, we'll just come back with more character and will persist until we prevail as we did in the 6 Nations. Unlike NZ who, arrogant even in defeat, invariably come up with the yet another lame reason why they lost.

they whinge and moan about bad food, bad refs, the stars being out of alignment, the opposition not playing 15 man rugby. Even England's dissembling of your side in 2012 was written off as a one off because you had flu.

And now reports of racism from the stands in your rugby heartland. Poor winners and poor losers. To be a fan of such a successful side and be such poor fans, front the stand to the forums, really really shocking.

You are happy being a Welsh fan and I am happy being a NZ fan.

That is all. Goodbye.

I wish I'd never pointed it out now. Sorry, kia.

No worries Cyril. It was my fault.

can we skip the SA v Wal as a proxy for SH v NH willy waggling pls? Much as i would love to get stuck into that one, its not the point of the thread   

aahhh screw it....ABs are a bunch of poncey serial cheats who only play 7-man rugby, and SA are a herd of lobotomised dinosaurs with as much creativity as a sledgehammer

   

quinsforever wrote:can we skip the SA v Wal as a proxy for SH v NH willy waggling pls? Much as i would love to get stuck into that one, its not the point of the thread   

aahhh screw it....ABs are a bunch of poncey serial cheats who only play 7-man rugby, and SA are a herd of lobotomised dinosaurs with as much creativity as a sledgehammer

   

Did SA play Wales? I didn't know, how many games were there?

 Sorry for derailing your thread quins.

Back on topic. I promise.

Q. Why are Vunipola and Morgan so fat?

A. Because every time SL makes a change, Farrell gives them a chocolate biscuit.   

love it. i remember the alleged original Glenn McGrath sledge... to feisty Eddo Brandes of Zimbabwe...

McGrath: Why are you so fat?

Brandes: Cos every time I f0ck your wife she gives me a biscuit!

on which note, Steffon Armitage is shorter and heavier than both of them! who's giving him the cookies? Wilko?

Armitage takes the cookies, he does not get given them.

maybe he's like obelix and he fell in the cookie-jar-strength-pot at birth?

either way, he's a strong puppy. humiliated billy v in the HC final. was men vs boys i kid you not. if SL doesnt include him for the next EPS squad then he obviously wont play for England again. But i actually think he will. SL's "back to the drawing board" comment i interpret as thinking outside the box, and that might stretch to including Armitage. which will be unpopular, but in 14 months time will be heralded as a genius move.

How did he humiliate Vuinipola?

Armitage has the freedom to roam for Toulon, something England couldn't offer. He rarely plays in a beaten pack and although wearing 8 doesn't really play like one.

He's a good player but he's not the messiah, he's a 7 who isn't as good as Robshaw.

did you watch the match? i was there. he turned billy v over, conceding penalties, on at least 3 occasions. i would say that alone constitutes humiliation.

billy v was so chastened by his experience against armitage that he has really struggled to regain any real form or confidence since then. if you doubt me, look at the post match interviews and facial expressions. billy v came of massively second best vs armitage.

armitage yes has more freedom to roam, but given that its on defence, when we, geniuses that we are, tell billy v to cover the deep touchline kick, i think it is absolutely clear that Armitage is much more effective in defense. every game i have watched he wins 3 or more kickable penalties turning over the biggest strike runner for the opposition. i havent seen billy v turn anyone over. ever.

steffon armitage is the worlds best at turning over isolated runners. bar none. maybe there are teams that dont have runners that get isolated by virtue of their making progress beyond the gainline. but for the teams that do, Armitage would be their worst nightmare...

Wales...

SA...

NZ...

Ive never seen Armitage break tackles or make hard yards like Billy, it's because one is an out and out 8 and the other a 7 who wears 8.

Armitage did not humiliate Vuinipola.

This is Vuinipola's 2nd full season, he's a kid. He was clearly exhausted towards the end of the season, he's still learning the game.

You'd be better off comparing Steffon with Robshaw.

"steffon armitage is the worlds best at turning over isolated runners. bar none."

No he isn't?!?! Is this a wind up???

Armitage humiliated Billy V. To pretend otherwise is not to have watched the game, or to be wearing an anti-Armitage hat.

Armitage has not only world class skills, he has World Number 1 skills at turning over the biggest baddest runner that teams have. Billy V got turned over specifically because he is such a good ball carrier, breaking tackles and making hard yards like you say. Armitage shadowed him, and whenever he got tackled ahead of his forwards, Armitage was over him in a flash, forcing the penalty for not releasing. Sometimes having someone like Billy V who "breaks the tackles or makes hard yards" is a liability for a team playing against a player like Armitage.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:"steffon armitage is the worlds best at turning over isolated runners. bar none."

No he isn't?!?! Is this a wind up???

who is better? Louw isnt as strong, neither is SOB. And England dont have anyone ever close. McCaw? gimme a break.

i think you really need to watch some of Steffon Armitages matches for Toulon. He is a physical freak of nature. Turning over the ball does not rely at all on the rest of his pack compared to Billy V retreating to the touchline to catch kicks, when we are talking about defense.

Billy is an 8!!!

You're comparing Steffon to Louw, SOB (7's) and then saying Billy isn't as good at a 7's role. Of course he isn't, he's in the team to make yards and tie in defences, does Armitage do this as good as Billy? No of course he doesn't.

Louw, Pocock, Gill, Brussow, Hooper are proven to be better at turning the ball over at a higher level behind less dominant packs. Armitage was an above average 7 in the AP and has never shown anything when given the chance in an England shirt.

billy is an 8. and he got turned over 3 times by Armitage, conceding key penalites in the HC final, biggest match to date of Billy V.

and yes i'm comparing Armitage's ability to turnover the ball to other turnover specialists. Not Billy V. I'm not saying Armitage necessarily should play 8. But i am definitely saying that someone who can play 6, 7 or 8 at the level that Armitage does should 110% be in the matchday squad.

NOTHING is proven about louw, pocock, gill, brussow or hooper vs armitage. nothing. and the england pack that armitage was behind, fyi, was by far, far the weakest of this lot.

what is clear, is that England DO NOT HAVE THE MUSCLE TO TURN THE BALL OVER against top sides. We harry them in defense, hope they kick, return it with interest via Brown, and look to build on really solid set-piece, particularly lineout.

when NZ stopped kicking we got found out.

Wales kicked it deep all day and we killed them.

these lessons will not have been lost. we do not knock teams back in the tackle or turn them over. maybe Coles will help win a few. But Robshaw and Wood are tacklers, not turnover/penalty winners.

dallaglio and hill were absolutely the worlds best at turning over the ball. and Back was the best at slowing it down.

McCaw is the best at slowing it down. His influence cannot be overrated.

Steffon Armitage, given the right platform and responsibilities, especially given the current rules regarding staying on feet that benefit low centres of gravity, could be at least as dominant as Hill IMO.

I posted this on the other thread yesterday;

Re: England,Stuart Lancaster,RWC and all that
by kingelderfield Yesterday at 10:24 pm

.And whilist we're at it....do you think its crossed the minds of anyone in Bomber command to get on the blower and negotiate a 12 month Aviva club loan deal for one Toulon based player?

No thought not..

he doesnt need to negotiate a loan. he just needs to include him in the EPS squad and get release from Toulon for training. which i am pretty sure they would do in exchange for compensation, just like the french clubs now get from the FFR.

it is, after all, his own stupid policy.

"billy is an 8. and he got turned over 3 times by Armitage, conceding key penalites in the HC final, biggest match to date of Billy V."

Armitage turning over Billy has little to do with Billy. It's his team mates that should be clearing out that are not doing their job.

"NOTHING is proven about louw, pocock, gill, brussow or hooper vs armitage. nothing. and the england pack that armitage was behind, fyi, was by far, far the weakest of this lot."

Because Armitage hasn't been good enough to be on that stage, it's only the last few years playing in the strongest pack in the NH that he's shown this.

He was regularly outplayed for Irish. He was regularly out muscled playing for Irish. I recall pretty much every time he came up against Qera he would be schooled to an embarrassing level.

We are never going to agree on Armitage, I don't get the hype.

As ar as I'm concerned the game was lost because of the initial onslaught on the England backline. Said as much before the game- The English inside backs, the same ones that played well in the first test, did not have the experience to handle a fully laden AB attack.

As I mentioned this would have the effect of pushing the problem out onto Tuilagi and beyond, and thats exactly what happened in the first couple of tries. The inside channel was in complete disarray and the ABs passed through it like an open book.

Further out Ashton and co copped the result. Hes not the greatest defender but by then it was Titanic stuff, he was copping the failure of the insides to stop the momentum, and when you have a finisher like Savea, theres not a lot you can do by then. Like he said he just finished off the good work of the guys inside.

7 tests at 10 and 12 simply showed. You just dont go up against the AB's with that and expect to get away with it twice.

In other areas our so called older guys all chimed in. Woodcock was immense, as was Jane and McCaw held his own. When the ABs are in that sort of space, few can live with them. But the inside back channel started the downward momentum, the AB confidence taking over once that happened.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:"billy is an 8. and he got turned over 3 times by Armitage, conceding key penalites in the HC final, biggest match to date of Billy V."

Armitage turning over Billy has little to do with Billy. It's his team mates that should be clearing out that are not doing their job.

"NOTHING is proven about louw, pocock, gill, brussow or hooper vs armitage. nothing. and the england pack that armitage was behind, fyi, was by far, far the weakest of this lot."

Because Armitage hasn't been good enough to be on that stage, it's only the last few years playing in the strongest pack in the NH that he's shown this.

He was regularly outplayed for Irish. He was regularly out muscled playing for Irish. I recall pretty much every time he came up against Qera he would be schooled to an embarrassing level.

We are never going to agree on Armitage, I don't get the hype.

that we are never going to agree on Armitage is something we can both agree on   

England need to sort out who their inside backs are for next year. Theres now a distinct lack of ability and depth there now. Comparing the AB 9, 10 and 12 options (with Carter and SBW to be added to the mix next year) to the English potentials, theres a huge gulf in terms of experience and ability. For me thats the biggest learning point of the tour.

Taylorman wrote:England need to sort out who their inside backs are for next year. Theres now a distinct lack of ability and depth there now. Comparing the AB 9, 10 and 12 options (with Carter and SBW to be added to the mix next year) to the English potentials, theres a huge gulf in terms of experience and ability. For me thats the biggest learning point of the tour.

I wouldn't say 9 & 10 were that far apart.

At 9 we have Care & Youngs who are both top class Ints, you have Smith at their level but nobody else imo.

10 is strong for you right now with Cruden & Barrett, Carter needs a big 4N, he was very average before he had a break. Farrell, Burns and Cips are all good players though, Burns had a good 1st test but suffered behind a weak pack in the 3rd.

12 there is big gulf in class without doubt

Care/Youngs
Cipriani
Wade
Burrell/Twelvetrees
Tuilagi
Yarde
Brown/Watson

pretty much with you there kingelderfield. not many of us fancy giving cips a go at 10, but i think he has earned a run in the shirt.

On the Billy v Armitage arguement going on up there...i think Quins you are doing Billy a disservice.

I watched that game and to blame Billy for the turnovers is extremely harsh.

Billy is in there to make the hard yards....the problem was, whilst he WAS doing that his fellow Saracens teamates didnt even turn up for the game and offered zero support when he made his runs and left him totally isolated.

In that situation Armitage took advantage...but in all fairness it wasnt difficult. Robshaw, Wallace, Wood, Kvesic, Will Fraser etc etc would all have made those plays.

Im not disagreeing that we maybe should be considering a genuine openside? But England dont have one (aside from Armitage) thats set the world alight. Thus Robshaws alround game wins the 7 spot.

I also agree with Sarge that Armitage is just given a free licence to roam. But thats easy to do when you have a pack including Bakkies Botha, Jaun Smith, Hayman, Fernandez Lobbe, and backs like Basteraud.

Taylorman wrote:England need to sort out who their inside backs are for next year. Theres now a distinct lack of ability and depth there now. Comparing the AB 9, 10 and 12 options (with Carter and SBW to be added to the mix next year) to the English potentials, theres a huge gulf in terms of experience and ability. For me thats the biggest learning point of the tour.

Interersting...

At 9 and 10 i would disagree. I think Care and Youngs are to hugely impressive 9's. The problem has been that Youngs had so many injuries and drops in form. When he does get his form he is a quality international 9. His problem is he needs a right good rest.
After those two it is a little bare, though there are jinks of light coming through with some of the kids.

In Farrell, Burns, Ford and Cipriani we have 4 excellent 10's who just need the experience of playing games. Conitnuing their development.

Personally i think Burns will take the shirt and make it his own. He will certainly toughen up being at leicester.

The problem that i do agree is at 12. We have some big ?? to work out.